"If Mrs. McCarthy leaked information that came her way as part of an inspector general's investigation, there also is no reason to assume that it--or the Pulitzer prize-winning story it helped produce--is true. Investigators often gather material that does not pan out or that turns out to be false or exaggerated."

And as to why there isn't yet a criminal prosecution, Taranto notes:

"The obvious answer is that she was fired based on an internal investigation, and the Justice Department, which would handle any prosecution, operates at its own pace."

9
comments:

I have no idea what the pros and cons of prosecuting her would be. I do know that from what little I heard on the tube over the weekend that the left leaning pundits are livid about this. I'm just a knucklehead so how firing a CIA employee for leaking classified info represents an unprecedented level of intimidation of the press is beyond me. From listening to them shriek one might get the idea that they viewed classified info leakers as full-fledged members of the MSM.

Cons, if what she was leaking was info about "secret prisons" might be the media circus court case with the corresponding difficulties regarding keeping other classified info properly under wraps.

I'm not suggesting she shouldn't be prosecuted just that there may be reasons to think twice about doing so.

BTW, Jim Miller points to an interesting little Wikepedia tidbit in which it is alleged that, in 1995:

On July 31, the U.S. News & World Report published a classified diagram of America's W-87 nuclear warhead. Allegedly, a reporter for the magazine obtained the document from Energy Secretary Hazel O'Leary during an interview. According to Rep. Curt Weldon (Republican-Pennsylvania), O'Leary "opened up a ledger of classified documents sitting on her desk and proceeded to show the reporter a diagram of the W-87 warhead in order to prove a point. She then handed the classified diagram of the nuclear warhead to the reporter. Her staff attempted to protest, pointing out that the document was classified. O'Leary hesitated a moment, took the document back from the reporter, crossed out the word 'classified' and promptly gave it back to the U.S. News staffer."

I'd say there was an anticipatory announcement to allow her to get her version out first in the event an indictment comes down. There are denials that she was a "source" but that is unsurprising.

The connections between her, Berger, Beers, Clarke and other Kerry players are real as are her donations to the Kerry campaign and the DNC. The press play that she is St. Mary of the Blessed Leak is understandable but I don't believe that it will hold up. Too many party connections.

An official DoJ announcement that she is the target of an investigation would be helpful.

Not ads. It would be a waste of money - the electorate can't hold a thought long enough to justify an ad buy. Hewitt, Limbaugh, Lucianne, American Thinker (which can feed all before) - that's where this will be developed. The corruption and security bit are small change for the mid-term, which is generally a GOTV problem for the base - not really issue driven ('94 being the exception).

Right now the kicker is OPEC and a possible summer boycott - economic rather than bomb terrorism. The oily Arab princes are making calculations on what effect a Dem Congress might have on their livelihoods and I don't particularly like the thoughts running through their greedy brains. $5 gas through the summer might affect the elections.

It might affect the mood of the populace concerning taking out Iraq and breaking OPEC for good, too.